International Initiative and Domestic Reforms: European Union Efforts to Combat Violence Against Women Celeste Montoya University of Colorado, Boulder

Politics & Gender, 5 (2009), 325–348. Printed in the U.S.A. International Initiative and Domestic Reforms: European Union Efforts to Combat Violence against Women Celeste Montoya University of Colorado, Boulder Since the 1990s, many countries have adopted policies aimed at combating violence against women; however, despite widespread policy adoption, actual reform has been uneven at best. In this article, I analyze the role played by international organizations and transnational networks in promoting women’s human rights. In the first section, I examine the different mechanisms by which states adopt new policies and the implications they have on prospects for implementation. I propose a new model, the umbrella pattern, that accounts for the decoupling of policy and practice caused by states with limited local capacity. In addition, I argue that international organizations can improve the prospects for domestic implementation by engaging in capacity-building strategies, such as resource distribution and the facilitation of transnational networks. In the second section, I present an empirical study of the European Union and its efforts to address violence against women. In regards to policy adoption, I evaluate its efforts at policy promotion and then provide a comparative and aggregate analysis of policy adoption in member and candidate states. To address EU capacity-building efforts, I focus on one particular initiative, the Daphne project, which is the EU’s primary mechanism for addressing gender violence. I would like to acknowledge the following people for their comments and support at various stages of this project: Lee Ann Banaszak, Lorraine Bayard de Volo, Tobin Grant, Scott McClurg, Courtney McDonald, Hector Perla, Meg Rincker, Fred Solt, Gina Yannitell Reinhardt, and anonymous reviewers. I would also like to thank the Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, for their research support on this project. Published by Cambridge University Press 1743-923X/09 $20.00 for The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association. # 2009 The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association. doi:10.1017/S1743923X0999016X 325 326 CELESTE MONTOYA n the early 1990s, the activism of a highly mobilized transnational I network of women succeeded in placing violence against women on the international agenda. The conscientious framing of women’s rights as human rights by this network, and the subsequent activism by women at the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1994,1 helped to raise public awareness and the political saliency of violence against women. In addition, it helped connect women’s advocacy groups to the larger global human rights regime. The continued activism of women mobilizing at local, regional, and international venues resulted in the dissemination of important legislative measures aimed at combating violence against women. However, the paradox that has challenged the progression of the larger human rights agenda threatens the future of these policy gains. While the global human rights regime “is almost certainly more influential today than at any time since World War II” (Beitz 2001, 269), gross violations of human rights continue on a daily basis. We are in a period when human rights are simultaneously increasingly important and imperiled globally (Sikkink 1998, 518). The decoupling of policy and practice allows states to adopt human rights legislation while they continue to engage in or allow oppressive practices (Berkovitch 1999; Meyer et al. 1997). Although many states now profess the advancement of women’s rights in the form of new legislation aimed at combating violence against women, these changes reflect more rhetoric than reality. What accounts for the decoupling of policy and practice? What can be done to ensure that domestic reform includes changes in practices? In this article, I analyze the role played by international organizations and transnational networks in promoting and ensuring substantive change in women’s human rights both theoretically and empirically. In the first section, I examine the different mechanisms by which countries adopt new policy and introduce a new model that accounts for the decoupling of policy and practice. The umbrella pattern demonstrates how some states respond rhetorically to international pressure through policy adoption despite the lack of 1. For a more detailed account see Bunch 1995, Bunch and Reilly 1994, Joachim 1999, and UNIFEM 2003. INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES AND DOMESTIC REFORMS 327 commitment or capacity to implement the new legislation. I also propose that international organizations can improve the prospects of implementation by focusing on local capacity-building measures through the distribution of resources and the facilitation of transnational cooperation. In the second section, I present an empirical study of the European Union and its efforts to promote policy adoption and implementation in its member states. While the advocacy events surrounding the UN’s Vienna conference marked a shift in activism from domestic arenas into the international arena, subsequent efforts have often been at the regional level. Over the past decade, the EU has paid increased attention to issues of women’s human rights. Although it has stopped short of adopting binding legislation, a fact that has garnered criticism from local and international women’s rights advocates, it has undertaken initiatives with the potential to greatly improve domestic efforts. In regards to policy adoption, I evaluate EU efforts in relation to other international initiatives, and then provide a comparative and aggregate analysis of policy adoption in member and candidate states. To address EU capacity-building efforts, I focus on one particular initiative, the Daphne project, which is the EU’s primary mechanism for addressing gender violence. In addition to highlighting characteristics of this project, I provide empirical evidence of its efforts to improve local capacity through resource distribution and the facilitation of transnational cooperation. While the EU is certainly a unique type of international organization, with different forms of authority and resources that must be carefully acknowledged, I argue that there are still wider lessons, positive and negative, to be gleaned from a thorough examination of its initiatives. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, TRANSNATIONAL ACTIVISM, AND THE POLICY PROCESS Part of the new global environment is the ability of transnational actors to shift their activities to different arenas to take advantage of political opportunities (Lenz 2003; Tarrow 2005). International organizations (IOs) and transnational advocacy networks (TANs) play an important part in changing the political opportunity structures (POS) for domestic 328 CELESTE MONTOYA groups.2 Their most widely acknowledged contributions are their ability to raise awareness about societal issues and to transmit global norms to states that help provide political momentum and societal pressure for change (Keck and Sikkink 1999; Naples and Desai 2002; Tarrow 2005; True and Mintrom 2001). IOs, in particular, can contribute to POS by providing a new venue for domestic groups to take their grievances. The most often cited model on the interaction between IOs and domestic groups is the “boomerang pattern” by Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1999). In the boomerang pattern, societal groups facing unresponsive states take their grievances to the international community, usually IOs, which in turn place pressure on the recalcitrant states to change their practices.3 A successful “boomerang,” however, in which local groups are able to use the international community to engage in information and leverage politics, relies on a number of factors: 1) There must be a lively and local grassroots movement with capable advocacy organizations; 2) these local organizations must be connected to international or transnational networks; 3) the targeted state must be open (or compelled) to respond to the international community; and 4) the targeted state must be capable of responding. Unfortunately, these conditions are not found in many countries. While IOs and TANs have been heralded for their role in the dissemination of norms, the decoupling of policy and practice suggests that rhetoric is disseminated rather than true support for reform. I propose that new insights are gained on patterns of influence once we decouple policy and practice. With decoupling, two different patterns become salient: the boomerang and the umbrella. In the latter umbrella model, we can begin to conceptualize the problems associated with top- down policymaking models that are not accompanied by a vibrant grassroots movement capable of monitoring adequate implementation. When groups of activists succeed in placing an issue on an IO’s agenda, the IO does not always respond by placing pressure on select countries or regions; instead, the IO’s response is more dispersed: IOs may place pressure on all of their members. A boomerang action might still occur, but the response is expanded, in a shape much like an umbrella (see Figure 1). In this way, the combined activism of advocacy groups can 2. The social movement literature focuses on how certain circumstances (such as access to governments, allies, and elites) may prompt social mobilization; however, POS also pertains to opportunities to mobilize

Load more